Daily Archives: February 28, 2017

Judith Mirville On Feminism and Female Rule

Fantastic. This is the example I was thinking of talking about an African culture where women pretty much run things.

Judith Mirville: There are quite a few traditional cultures like that where all the brainy and managerial work is done by women, and the men keep content with mere physical work and a more childish, happy-go-lucky personality throughout life. That is the case with the Bamileke culture of Cameroon. But these cultures, by their own avowal, never evolve and keep content with a minimalist standard of living. These cultures, though matriarchal in a technical sense, have no use for any form of vindictive feminism or other left-wing ideology.

Women as a rule are conservative, and the societies where they have the highest real say tend to see all form of progress and experimentation as negative. Instead they idolize a mythical past without technical progress.

Women as a rule when having been in power for a few generations tend also to devalue learning in the academic sense. In the societies where they alone access it, learning is devalued except as an utilitarian means of day-to-day economic survival or of social interaction, so such societies prefer to stay backward.

If feminism is to last as a dominant ideology in the West (which supposes it jettisons all references to any resentment-based progressive thought and also to non-standard sexuality), it will turn the countries it rules into underdeveloped ones, so the Winnipeg picture of the women construction business manager with an attaché-case with a construction worker as a servant is a wholly disconnected fantasy.

What you could get instead as a picture of things to come (in the halcyon case everything goes on well for the feminist cause and their beneficiaries grow wise) is a woman open-air market manager with men acting as cowboys in the background (if the Plains of Winnipeg still exist), the only modern businessperson in the further background being a Chinese or Arab. You may also see male tourist adventurers coming to visit Manitoba as a quite primitive country. Whenever women are really at the top for good, they have no taste for construction, and they prefer to look for a greater profit to be made by existing things that require no invention.

Anyway, right now in Winnipeg, construction workers, especially when they are part of criminal organizations and part-time bouncers, make more money and enjoy higher social status than the nerdy people they despise. The bosses they obey are quite often Sicilian ones who have no use for any feminist manager.

That supposes the feminists in question rediscover a morality and also connect to a traditional spirituality approving of their approach. Maybe an Amerindian one, who knows? But that is far from their present-day perspective: these modern feminists are intent on destroying all morality which they resent against as being of male nature. They may be acting at the behest of vested interests who want to establish a dictatorship based on pure corruption.

Once every whiff of past morality is destroyed, all that remains is self-interest, and even feminism ends up waning as all collective identity causes of the past fade away once the elites have effectively succeeded in rooting out all political idealism and no longer need Identity Politics to divide the masses, a kind of late Ottoman imperial regime is installed, and there are no longer state subventions to special interest groups.

Once public ideals are all destroyed, and all what remains is materialistic self-interest, what do these would-be princesses want? Marrying princes or billionaires, preferably from One and  Thousand Nights-style patriarchal countries such as Qatar or Colombia. The fiercest feminists will be the first to revert to pure gangster-style patriarchy. This just like the fiercest Jewish Marxists were the first to turn into the neocons. Most are now before moving even further to the Right as we see in Israel. That country is growing into another Iran or Qatar with a slightly different Semitic religion.

These feminists only object to idealistic men of ordinary revenues doing the kind of non-work they envy like university tenured professors. When they meet gangsters, even of low life, revenue and status, they enjoy having regular sex with them and settle for traditional family life.

Women are also more egoistical by temperament, and feminism can last as long as there is a progressive ideology justifying the cost of their subventions.

But feminism is not as progressive as it seems since normally women don’t side with their less fortunate sisthren. Even the present-day radical feminists don’t object to FGM as practiced in other cultures.

The reality untold is that sexual pleasure itself however carefully mastered is just contrary to any moral decency and ideal. There is such a thing as carnal sin.

13 Comments

Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Cameroon, Canada, Central Africa, Cultural, Culture, Ethics, Feminism, Gender Studies, Labor, North America, Philosophy, Politics, Radical Feminists, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, Women

“From Andalusia to Far West Texas,” by Alpha Unit

The wild ancestor of modern cattle is the aurochs. This nearly seven-foot-tall beast ranged throughout North Africa and Eurasia. Domestication occurred independently in Africa, the Near East, and the Indian subcontinent between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago. Humans have been raising cattle for their milk, meat, tallow, and hides ever since.

But the practice of raising large herds of livestock on extensive grazing lands didn’t begin until around 1000 CE, in Spain and Portugal. Cattle ranching, in particular, was unique to medieval Spain.

During the Spanish Reconquista, members of the Spanish nobility and various military orders received grants to large tracts of land that the Kingdom of Castile had conquered from the Moors. Pastoralists found that open-range breeding of sheep and cattle was most suitable for these vast areas of Castilla-La Mancha, Extremadura, and Andalusia.

It was in Andalusia that cattle ranching took hold, with cattlemen owning herds as large as 1,000 head or more. Those cattlemen oversaw the first cattle drives. Cattle could be driven overland as much as 400 miles from summer pastures in the North to winter ones in Andalusia. The vaqueros who herded the cattle were freemen hired for the year and paid in coin or in calves.

Andalusian ranchers introduced the use of horses in managing cattle – a necessity in the long overland drives to new pastures. They also established the customs of branding and ear-marking cattle to denote ownership. By the time Columbus left Spain on his first voyage, the cattle industry of Andalusia had undergone a few centuries of trial-and-error improvement. On his second voyage Columbus unloaded some stallions, mares, and cattle on the island of Hispaniola, introducing cattle to the New World.

Conquistadors who arrived in the New World in search of gold continued what Columbus began, turning Andalusian cattle loose throughout the Spanish West Indies and other parts of Spain’s colonial empire.

In 1521 Gregorio de Villalobos defied a law prohibiting cattle trading in Mexico and left Santo Domingo for Veracruz with several cows and a bull, importing the first herd of Spanish cattle to Mexico. Hernán Cortés brought horses and cattle to Mexico as well, and by 1540 Spanish cattle are permanently in North America.

Cortés had set about using enslaved Aztecs to herd cattle. Slave labor to herd cattle was overseen mostly by Spanish missions, which came to dominate ranching. Under Spanish law no Indian slave was permitted to ride horses, but this obviously impractical law was ignored. Aztec Indians became the first vaqueros of New Spain (Mexico), where conditions for raising cattle were even better than those in the West Indies.

By the 1600s there weren’t as many Native slaves, as thousands had died over time from exposure to smallpox, measles, and yellow fever, in outbreaks that began among the Spaniards and to which Natives had no immunity. As a result, the vaquero labor force came to include mission Indian converts, African slaves, and mestizos.

New Spain’s borders spread northward into what is now the US Southwest. The sparsely populated northern frontier regions of northern Mexico, Texas, and California didn’t have enough water for farming but the climate and acres of wild grass and other vegetation made them ideal for cattle ranching. Cattle and horses were now a feature of American life and were beginning to shape American identity.

Beginning in the 1820s, Anglo settlers moved to the Texas region of Mexico in search of inexpensive land. Texas was severely underpopulated, so Mexico had enacted the General Colonization Law of 1824, permitting immigration to all heads of households regardless of race, religion, or immigrant status. Anglo Texans were largely farmers and didn’t warm initially to the Spanish-Mexican concept of large-scale ranching. But ranching became popular among Anglos after immigration agents began promoting it. Texas cattle were so plentiful and cheap that most people could begin raising livestock without a large investment.

Anglo Texan cowhands and their counterparts throughout the US were the latest incarnation of the vaquero that got his start in southern Spain. The vaquero rides on, whether he’s Native, mestizo, Black, Hispano, or Anglo.

12 Comments

Filed under Africa, Agricutlure, Alpha Unit, Americas, Amerindians, Animals, Blacks, Caribbean, Colonialism, Cows, Domestic, Eurasia, Europe, European, Europeans, Guest Posts, Hispanics, History, Horses, Immigration, India, Labor, Latin America, Livestock Production, Mestizos, Mexicans, Mexico, Mixed Race, Near East, North Africa, North America, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South America, Spain, Spaniards, Texas, The Americas, USA, West, Whites

Look What Happens When You Let Women Run the Show

Yee: This is just male chauvinist nonsense. Either rule will work when you enforce it, people learn to adapt. Taliban and Saudi societies are so difference from the Philippines, still people in these places live a normal life.

As for the rulers themselves, as long as they’re good at organizing things, it’s will work. This is the main quality that required to run a society. Females actually are better.

Depends. Are the women ruling according to the rules and mores of women or according to the rules and mores of men. Look what happens when you let women make the law. Prohibition was put in by women. Women’s long-term activism was the only reason that Prohibition was passed at all. Although it came one year after women were given the right to vote, Prohibition was a societal change that was made by the rules and mores of women. All over the world, whenever alcohol is made illegal or restricted, it done most of the time by women.  The result of Prohibition? Total chaos.

That’s what happens when you let women make the rules. And in Communist insurgencies, typically Maoist ones, they often put women in charge of the local village and town governments. What’s the first thing they do? Over and over I have read that the first thing they do is make alcohol illegal. Result of making alcohol illegal?

Chaos.

Sweden is governed according to the rules and mores of women. That’s why it is a nightmare state for men.

Female rulers are fine. You can have an all-female government for all I care. But they must govern according to the rules and mores of men, not women.

Look what happened in California when we let women make the rules. The state of California just voted that on all university campuses, you must have affirmative consent for every sex act. Like you want to kiss her, you have to ask, “Can I kiss you?” You want to touch her tits? You have to ask her, “Can I feel your tits?”

Guess who put those rules in?

Women.

What is the result of this stupid-ass “affirmative consent” nonsense?

Chaos.

Those are the sort of lunatic rules and laws that you get when you let women run the show and govern according to the rules and mores of women. According to the rules and mores of women, that idiot affirmative consent rule is 100% rational. That’s how women actually think. They think a rule like that is completely reasonable and sensible.

19 Comments

Filed under California, Europe, Gender Studies, Government, Higher Education, Law, Left, Local, Maoism, Marxism, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, Sweden, USA, West, Women

Female Rule Doesn’t Work, and Men Are Necessary for Any Societal Achievement

Betty: It’s right that the reaction of these women is exaggerated but to say that they are incapable of running a country is plainly wrong. All war, chaos and problems were and are caused by male presidents like Hitler, Erdogan, Trump, etc. So it’s rather males being drama queens.

Saying that all women would make these memes illegal just because SOME have that point of view is almost equal to saying that all Muslims are terrorists because ISIS members consider themselves Muslims.

On top of that, many years ago when women weren’t allowed to work they were controlling a whole household of like 10 kids while cooking and cleaning every single day without help. So I’d say women are very capable of running a society or country, as for example Maria Theresia reigned Austria instead of her husband, which went perfectly fine.

Women can govern in partnership with men but countries must be ruled by the laws and mores of men. Women are free to help us run countries only as long as those countries are run according to the rules of men.

If you let women govern according to the rules and mores of women, things will fall apart pretty quickly. A lot of Communist groups put women in charge when they took over small rural villages. It was always a catastrophe. The first thing women do when they get in charge is make prostitution, gambling and booze illegal. Those are the three things that men need to make like tolerable enough so they don’t kill themselves, and those are the first things women outlaw. Thanks a lot, ladies. This rule does not work very well. Men are not very happy, but really no one is very happy. Things rapidly become pretty chaotic.

Sweden is currently being ruled by women. It’s under Female Rule – I mean women ruling according to the rules and mores of women along with a bunch of Beta cuck men helping them. It is not going well. The men are leaving in droves to go to Thailand to grab Thai brides because they have had it up to here with Swedish women.

Maria Teresia, many queens, and Thatcher all governed according to the rules, laws and mores of men. That’s not even Female Rule. That’s called Male Rule with Female Rulers – Women governing according to the laws, rules and mores of Male Rule.

Female Rule is when women impose their worldview on society. As long as the male rules of society are kept intact, women are free to take any government position they wish.

There are societies in Africa that are essentially under Female Rule. The men have just said, “The Hell with it, we’re done, here, you ladies take over. Have fun.” Women hold most of the power in these places. There is little violence or crime and actually there are not even a lot of serious disputes. These are sort of peace love dope hippie- type societies.

On the other hand, not much gets done in this places. They tend to stagnate and cruise in stasis. In particular, there is not much education because I suppose most women are just not interested in that. A lot of stuff that needs to get done never gets done, and everything gets put off. So you have societies without a lot of serious conflict, but on the other hand, there is little advancement.

I think women want to find a happy place and just be relaxed and go with the flow there rather than deal with the sturm and drang of continuous progress.

Personally I do not believe women can run societies, or if they do, they have to do so in partnership with good men or according to the rules of good men.

I feel that men are essential for any societal advancement. Women are free to help us men in societal advancement, but if you put them in charge, it’s just not going to work. Women just can’t run societies. There’s nothing wrong with that. Women can’t do everything, you know. So there’s some stuff they can’t do well? So what? There are plenty of things that women are great at. They should focus on those.

85 Comments

Filed under Africa, Austria, Britain, Europe, Gender Studies, Government, History, Left, Man World, Marxism, Masculinism, Politics, Regional, Sociology, Sweden, Women

Are 24% of All Men Pedophiles?

There are studies showing that a majority of men are attracted to prepubescents. In fact, 21-26% of men in two studies score “pedophilic” in the lab. They react just as strongly or stronger to girls 2-12 as they go to females 13+. So are 26% of men pedophiles? No. One wonders how these men rationalize this. I assume that if you have maximal attraction to mature females, you could just blow off the attraction to little girls by ignoring or repressing it. What is more important is exclusivity. In the same studies, .1-1% of men score fixated in the lab. They are strongly attracted to prepubescents and have little to no attraction to matures.

I work in mental health, and I don’t care if someone tells me that little girls turn them on. I want to know if they are fixated on them in that they have little to no attraction to matures or if they retain maximal attraction to mature females. We worry about fixated pedophiles because the only thing that turns them on is little girls. That makes them rather dangerous right there. The only way to fulfill their sex drive is to break the law.

To show you the absurdity of irrational women who insist that if you get turned on by teenage girls, you are a pedophile, we can look at lab studies that showed that ~100% of men are attracted to underage teenage girls. They generally show 100% are attracted, but it may be a bit lower for the youngest teens. One study in Italy showed that “only” 88% of men were attracted to 13 year old girls.

One study I found showed declining attraction by age. In that study all of the men were attracted to females down to age 7! And 100% of men were attracted to 16 and 17 year old girls as strongly as they were to adult females.

The results looked like this:

Female Age Reaction

16+        100%
15         90% of maximum
14         80% of maximum
13         70% of maximum
12         60% of maximum
11         50% of maximum
10         40% of maximum
9          30% of maximum
8          20% of maximum
7          10% of maximum
below 7    Zero

As you can see, as females get younger and younger and look less and less like an adult female, men’s attraction to them decreases in tandem. Men are just as attracted to 16 and 17 year old girls as they are to adult women because girls that age have the fully adult body of a woman. So according to this study, all men are turned on by little girls but only at a relatively low level. As the girls get younger and younger, men are less and less attracted to them as they look less and less like the men’s preference, the mature female. The only thing we can say is that it is quite abnormal to be attracted to females below age 7!

Little in life is black or white, but most people are too stupid to figure this out. Most everything in life is on a continuum. In other words, everything’s a gray area. But start talking like that around 90% of people and watch as they the voices rise and the fists pound the table. Most humans are simply too dumb to move beyond primitive black and white thinking.

We can clearly see by this study that all normal men react just as strongly to girls age 16-17 as they do to adult women. So these women saying that men who are attracted at this age range are pedophiles are not making sense. These women are stating that all adult men are pedophiles. Do they really wish to stand by this stunning statement? Do they really wish to scream that all men are pedophiles? That’s quire a remarkable statement to make. Why don’t they try it and see what reaction they get?

For fixated pedophiles, the graph no doubt looks quite different. Peak attraction will be around their AOA or Age of Attraction, and AOA will decline as the girls move out of the age of attraction, especially towards the higher end. A number of pedophiles even show non-pedophilic attraction to 13-15 year old girls because girls this age retain enough childlike features to be attractive to them, but the attraction declines with each increasing year of age. By age 16, even most hebephiles refer to girls this age as “grandmas” and voice strong disgust for them.

9 Comments

Filed under Gender Studies, Girls, Jailbait, Lolitas, Man World, Mass Hysterias, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Pedophilia, Psychology, Sex